On 11/30/2009 05:05 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 11/27/2009 04:56 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Physics don't. A two dimensional screen will never be able to more than
simulate 3D. 3D requires more dead dinosaurs, coal and/or other sources of
electrical energy than 2D to produce.
This isn't necessarily the case, in theory or in practice. I used an
ammeter to do some measurements of this on my T41[1] several releases ago[2],
and in general compositing the desktop using 3d hardware used slightly less
energy than running with desktop effects turned off.
Which is to say, if the 3d hardware can do something easily, it may use more
energy for the GPU than using 2d acceleration only, but that translates to
less energy doesn't necessarily mean more power for the whole system. If you
do more complex 3d things, yes, it will take more power, but the act of using
the 3d hardware instead of the 2d hardware can be more efficient in terms
of energy.
[1] that's 2373-9FU for those wondering.
[2] a bit after compiz came into existance
Whilst I am sure you are right, I do think that the current generation of
Graphics chips used in computers are too power hungry. Just look at the
heatsinks and fans on a lot of desktop graphics boards or how hot
the integrated graphics chipsets get... Most of this power
usage seems to stem from the additional 3D circuitry within them and
is used even if the 3D features are not. Although I do need 3D on some
of my systems (for CAD/CAM not bling) I do try and look for a simple,
low power graphics systems for those that don't and this I find difficult
to do as most chipsets have gone 3D. I expect that graphics chipset
manufacturers may start to improve power usage now with more focus on
power usage and the fact that processors can consume less than the
graphics chipsets used, we will see, but I would lament the day when a
desktop GUI system relied on having 3D support.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
